Indiana Part B FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

1. Percent of youth with IEPs graduating The State’s FFY 2005 SPP OSEP’s March 2, 2006, SPP response letter required the State to review its
from high school with a regular diploma reported data for this indicator activities to determine if additional activities were needed, or if the activities
compared to percent of all youth in the are 69.46%. This represents needed to be revised or modified to have the desired effect.
State graduating with a regular diploma. slippage from FFY 2004 data
The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator in its SPP and
of 72.7%. The State did not
[Results Indicator] OSEP accepts those revisions.
meet its FFY 2005 target of
73.0%. OSEP looks forward to the State’s data demonstrating improvement in
performance in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.

2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of The State’s FFY 2005 SPP OSEP’s March 2, 2006 SPP response letter required the State to review its
high school compared to the percent of all reported data for this indicator activities to determine if additional activities were needed, or if the activities
youth in the State dropping out of high are 30.54%. This represents needed to be revised or modified to have a desired effect. OSEP’s letter
school. slippage from FFY 2004 data further required the State to ensure that the dropout data that it provided in
of 27.3%. The State did not response to this indicator in the APR due February 1, 2007 were complete
[Results Indicator]
meet its FFY 2005 target of and included all high schools.
27%.
The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator in its SPP and
OSEP accepts those revisions.
The State indicated in the APR that the State’s final graduation rate
calculation included the three high schools that did not report dropout data
for this indicator in the SPP.
OSEP looks forward to the State’s data demonstrating improvement in
performance in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.

3. Participation and performance of children The State’s FFY 2005 SPP OSEP looks forward to the State’s data demonstrating improvement in
with disabilities on statewide assessments: reported data for this indicator performance in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.
are 81.9%. This represents
A. Percent of districts that have a disability
slippage from FFY 2004 data
subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n”
of 91.1%. The State did not
size meeting the State’s AYP objectives for
meet its FFY 2005 target of
progress for disability subgroup.
92%.

FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 1

 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

[Results Indicator]

3. Participation and performance of children The State’s FFY 2005 SPP OSEP’s March 2, 2006, SPP response letter required the State to include in
with disabilities on statewide assessments: reported data for this indicator the FFY 2005 APR, due February 1, 2007, an analysis of compliance data
are 96.87%. The State met its related to 34 CFR §§300.347(a)(5) (now 34 CFR §300.320(a)(6)) and
B. Participation rate for children with IEPs in
FFY 2005 target of 95%. 300.138 (now 34 CFR §300.160) to determine whether any students with
a regular assessment with no accommodations;
disabilities did not participate in statewide assessments due to a failure by a
regular assessment with accommodations;
public agency to meet the Part B requirements. OSEP first identified this
alternate assessment against grade level
issue in the State’s FFY 2003 APR. OSEP’s November 22, 2006 verification
standards; alternate assessment against
visit letter also noted this issue and required that the State provide the
alternate achievement standards.
analysis in the FFY 2005 APR, due February 1, 2007. The State provided
[Results Indicator] the same analysis that it reported in the December 2005 SPP, but it failed to
provide the required analysis of compliance data for statewide assessments.
In the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, the State must provide the
required analysis of compliance data related to 34 CFR §§300.320(a)(6) and
300.160 to determine whether any students with disabilities did not
participate in statewide assessments due to a failure by a public agency to
meet the Part B requirements.
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve performance and looks
forward to the State reporting complete data in the FFY 2006 APR.

3. Participation and performance of children The State’s FFY 2005 SPP The State met its targets and OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve
with disabilities on statewide assessments: reported data for this indicator performance.
are 33.31% for
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs
English/Language Arts (ELA)
against grade level standards and alternate
and 42.13% in Math. The
achievement standards.
State met its FFY 2005 targets
[Results Indicator] of 32% in ELA and 38% in
Math.

4. Rates of suspension and expulsion: The State’s FFY 2005 OSEP’s March 2, 2006 SPP response letter required the State to review, and
reported data for this indicator if necessary revise, its improvement strategies to ensure that they would
A. Percent of districts identified by the State as
are 3.0%. This represents enable the State to include data in the FFY 2005 APR, due February 1, 2007,
having a significant discrepancy in the rates of
slippage from FFY 2004 data demonstrating compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR §300.146(b)
suspensions and expulsions of children with
of 2.3%. The State did not (now 34 CFR §300.170(b)).
disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 2
 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

year; and meet its FFY 2005 target of The State identified significant discrepancies, but did not describe how the
2.25%. State reviewed, and if appropriate revised (or required the affected LEAs to
[Results Indicator]
revise), its policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development
and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and
supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure compliance with the IDEA, as
required by 34 CFR §300.170(b). This represents noncompliance with 34
CFR §300.170(b).
To correct the noncompliance, the State must describe, in its FFY 2006 APR,
the review, and if appropriate revision, of policies, procedures, and practices
relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure
compliance with the IDEA for the LEAs identified as having significant
discrepancies in FFY 2004. In its FFY 2006 APR, the State must also
describe the review, and if appropriate revision, of policies, procedures, and
practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of
positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to
ensure compliance with the IDEA for: (1) the LEAs identified as having
significant discrepancies in the FFY 2005 APR; and (2) the LEAs identified
as having significant discrepancies in the FFY 2006 APR.
OSEP’S November 22, 2006 verification visit letter required the State to
submit with its FFY 2005 APR, a plan for ensuring that the State’s next
submission of suspension/expulsion data under section 618 is accurate.
The State did not submit a plan that addresses the accuracy of its
suspension/expulsion data in the APR. The State must include this
information in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.
OSEP looks forward to the State’s data demonstrating improvement in
performance in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.

4. Rates of suspension and expulsion: Based upon our preliminary review of all State submissions for Indicator 4B,
it appears that the instructions for this indicator were not sufficiently clear
B. Percent of districts identified by the State
and, as a result, confusion remains regarding the establishment of
as having a significant discrepancy in the rates
measurements and targets that are race-based and for which there is no
of suspensions and expulsions of greater than
finding that the significant discrepancy is based on inappropriate policies,
10 days in a school year of children with
procedures, or practices relating to the development and implementation of
disabilities by race and ethnicity.
IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and

FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 3

 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

[Results Indicator; New] procedural safeguards. As a result, use of these targets could raise
Constitutional concerns. Therefore, OSEP has decided not to review this
year’s submissions for Indicator 4B for purposes of approval and will revise
instructions for this indicator to clarify how this indicator will be used in the
future. Based upon this, OSEP did not consider the submissions for
Indicator 4B in making determinations under section 616(d). It is also
important that States immediately cease using Indicator 4B measurements
and targets, unless they are based on a finding of inappropriate policies,
procedures, or practices relating to the development and implementation of
IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and
procedural safeguards.

5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 5A. The State reported FFY 5A. The State’s FFY 2005 APR data are inconsistent with the State’s 618
through 21: 2005 data of 59.54%. The data, therefore OSEP used the 618 data to determine whether the FFY 2005
State’s 618 data for FFY 2005 target was met. In the FFY 2006 APR, the State must report data that are
A. Removed from regular class less than 21%
are 61.71%. The 618 data for consistent with its 618 data. Based on the State’s 618 data, the State met its
of the day;
FFY 2005 represent progress target for this indicator and OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve
B. Removed from regular class greater than from the State’s FFY 2004 performance.
60% of the day; or data of 60.35%. Based on the
5B. The State met its target, and OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to
C. Served in public or private separate State’s 618 data, the State met
improve performance.
schools, residential placements, or homebound its FFY 2005 target of equal
to or greater than 60.36%. 5C. OSEP looks forward to the State’s data demonstrating improvement in
or hospital placements.
performance in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.
[Results Indicator] 5B. The State reported FFY
2005 data of 14.33%. The
State met its FFY 2005 target
of equal to or less than
15.31%.
5C. The State reported FFY
2005 data of 1.99%. This
represents slippage from the
State’s FFY 2004 data of
1.24%. The State did not
meet its FFY 2005 target of
equal to or less than 1.23%.

6. Percent of preschool children with IEPs The State’s FFY 2005 The State met its target and OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve

FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 4

 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

who received special education and related reported data for this indicator performance.
services in settings with typically developing are 58.3%. The State met its
Please note that, due to changes in the 618 State-reported data collection,
peers (i.e., early childhood settings, home, and FFY 2005 target of 43%.
this indicator will change for the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.
part-time early childhood/part-time early
States will be required to describe how they will collect valid and reliable
childhood special education settings).
data to provide baseline and targets in the FFY 2007 APR, due February 1,
[Results Indicator] 2009.

7. Percent of preschool children with IEPs Entry data provided. The State reported the required entry data and activities. The State must
who demonstrate improved: provide progress data and improvement activities in the FFY 2006 APR, due
February 1, 2008.
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including
social relationships);
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and
skills (including early language/
communication and early literacy); and
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their
needs.
[Results Indicator; New]

8. Percent of parents with a child receiving The State’s FFY 2005 The State provided baseline data, targets and improvement activities and
special education services who report that reported baseline for this OSEP accepts the SPP for this indicator.
schools facilitated parent involvement as a indicator are 88%.
OSEP’s March 2, 2006, SPP response letter required the State to include a
means of improving services and results for
revised sampling methodology, with its FFY 2005 APR, due February 1,
children with disabilities.
2007, that describes how data were collected.
[Results Indicator; New]
The sampling plan for this indicator is not technically sound. Please call
your State Contact as soon as possible.

Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality

9. Percent of districts with disproportionate The State reported that 0% of The State provided targets at 0% and improvement activities. OSEP accepts
representation of racial and ethnic groups in districts identified “a the SPP for this indicator.
special education and related services that is disproportionate number of
On page 62 of the revised SPP, submitted on February 1, 2007, the State
the result of inappropriate identification. African-American students
provided a definition of significant disproportionality. The State identified
due to inappropriate
[Compliance Indicator; New] the number and percent of districts having a disproportionate incidence rate
identification.”
of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services finding
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 5
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

that ten (10) of 293 districts were identified as having a disproportionate

incidence rate of African-American students identified as students with
disabilities. The State reported that in the Fall of 2006, it required six of
those 10 districts to examine and review: policies and procedures in place to
assure non-discriminatory evaluation and decision-making; use of non-
biased assessments; staff training on non-discriminatory decision-making;
training of psychological service personnel; and pre-referral activities to help
assure appropriate identification.
On page 64 of the revised SPP, the State indicated that the districts
responding to the Fall 2006 inquiry reported that most of the
disproportionality was due to private residential facilities serving students
with disabilities placed there by other agencies, e.g., juvenile justice,
welfare, courts, etc. Thus, the State reported that 0% of those districts had
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services that was due to inappropriate identification. It
is unclear from the State’s information, however, whether all of the six
districts responded to its Fall 2006 inquiry. Further, the State failed to
include any information about the other four districts that were identified
with a disproportionate incidence rate for African-American students. The
State should clarify these issues in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1,
2008.
It appears that the State is using a definition of significant disproportionality
to determine disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups.
OSEP reminds the State that Indicator 9 requires that States report on the
percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups in special education and related services that is the result of
inappropriate identification.
The State indicated that it only concentrated on overidentification of racial
and ethnic groups in special education and related services. Indicator 9,
pursuant to 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3), requires States to identify
disproportionate representation, both overrepresentation and
underrepresentation, of races and ethnicities in special education and related
services. Therefore, we conclude that the State is not complying with 34
CFR §300.600(d)(3). To correct this noncompliance, the State must provide,
in its FFY 2006 APR, information demonstrating that it has examined data
for FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 for both overrepresentation and
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 6
 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

underrepresentation of races and ethnicities in special education and related

services.

10. Percent of districts with disproportionate The State provided data on The State provided targets at 0% and improvement activities. OSEP accepts
representation of racial and ethnic groups in the percent of districts with the SPP for this indicator.
specific disability categories that is the result “significant
The State reported the percent of districts with significant disproportionality
of inappropriate identification. disproportionality.”
of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services.
[Compliance Indicator; New] Indicator 10 requires that States report on the percent of districts with
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific
disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. The
State must include, in its FFY 2006 APR, its definition of disproportionate
representation and describe how the State determined that disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories
was the result of inappropriate identification (e.g., monitoring data, review
of policies, practices and procedures, etc.).
The State identified districts with significant disproportionality of racial and
ethnic groups in specific disability categories but did not determine if the
disproportionality was the result of inappropriate identification, as required
by 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3). The State must provide, in its FFY 2006 APR,
baseline data from FFY 2005 on the percent of districts identified with
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific
disability categories that was the result of inappropriate identification, and
describe how the State made that determination (e.g., monitoring data,
review of policies, practices and procedures, etc.). The State must also
provide data, in its FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, on the percent of
districts identified in FFY 2006 with disproportionate representation of
racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of
inappropriate identification, and describe how the State made that
determination, even if the determination occurs in the fall of 2007.
The State indicated that it only concentrated on over identification of racial
and ethnic groups in specific disability categories. Indicator 10, pursuant to
34 CFR §300.600(d)(3), requires States to identify disproportionate
representation, both overrepresentation and underrepresentation, of races and
ethnicities in special education and related services. Therefore, we conclude
that the State is not complying with 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3). To correct this
noncompliance, the State must provide, in its FFY 2006 APR, information
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 7
 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

demonstrating that it has examined data for FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 for
both overrepresentation and underrepresentation of races and ethnicities in
specific disability categories.
It appears that the State only analyzed data on African-American students for
this indicator. Under 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3), a State may, in reviewing data
for each race ethnicity category, do so in a statistically appropriate manner,
and may set an “n” size that applies to all racial and ethnic groups, but it
must review data for all race ethnicity categories in the State and must do the
analysis at the LEA level for all racial and ethnic groups meeting that “n”
size that are present in any of its LEAs. Therefore, we conclude that the
State is not complying with 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3). To correct this
noncompliance, the State, in its FFY 2006 APR, must describe and report on
its review of data and information for all race ethnicity categories in the
State to determine if there is disproportionate representation that is the result
of inappropriate identification for both FFY 2005 and FFY 2006.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision

11. Percent of children with parental consent The State’s FFY 2005 The State provided baseline data, 100% targets and improvement activities
to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days reported baseline data for this and OSEP accepts the SPP for this indicator. The State reported data based
(or State-established timeline). indicator are 78%. on a State-established timeline within which the evaluation must be
conducted.
[Compliance Indicator; New]
The State reported that all LEAs and school corporations falling below target
performance would be required to submit a corrective action plan including
research as to probable causes and complete within timelines to achieve
target performance.
OSEP looks forward to reviewing data in the FFY 2006 APR, due February
1, 2008, that demonstrates compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR
§300.301(c)(1), including data demonstrating correction of noncompliance
identified in FFY 2005.

12. Percent of The State’s FFY 2005 The State did not include data regarding the range of days beyond the third
children referred reported data for this indicator birthday for children for whom an IEP was not implemented by the third
by Part C prior are 95.8%. This represents birthday. The State must provide the required data in the FFY 2006 APR,
to age 3, who progress from the State’s FFY due February 1, 2008.
are found 2004 reported data of 84%.
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 8
 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

eligible for Part The State did not meet its OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts and looks forward to reviewing data in
B, and who have FFY 2005 target of 100%. the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that demonstrate compliance with
an IEP the requirements of 34 CFR §300.124.
developed and
implemented by
their third
birthdays.
[Compliance Indicator]

13. Percent of youth aged 16 and above with The State’s FFY 2005 The State provided baseline data, 100% targets and improvement activities
an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, reported baseline for this and OSEP accepts the SPP for this indicator.
annual IEP goals and transition services that indicator are 88%.
The State did not submit actual numbers for this indicator and the State must
will reasonably enable the student to meet the
provide the required raw data in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.
post-secondary goals.
The State’s data includes 14 year olds, according to a State rule that requires
[Compliance Indicator; New]
transition plans beginning at age 14, or earlier if determined appropriate by
the case conference committee. The State must revise its targets to align
with the State reported data.
OSEP looks forward to reviewing data in the FFY 2006 APR, due February
1, 2008, that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR
§300.320(b)(1), including data demonstrating correction of noncompliance
identified in FFY 2005.

14. Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no The State provided a plan that The State provided a plan that describes how data will be collected. The
longer in secondary school and who have been describes how data will be State must provide baseline data, targets, and improvement activities with
competitively employed, enrolled in some type collected. the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.
of post-secondary school, or both, within one
year of leaving high school.
[Results Indicator; New]

15. General supervision system (including The State reported that 100% The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator in its SPP, and
monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) of noncompliance corrected OSEP accepts those revisions.
identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon within one year was not
As further detailed below, the State provided no quantification of its
as possible but in no case later than one year achieved.
performance for this indicator.
from identification.
In its SPP submitted in December 2005, the State reported that it had

FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 9

 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

[Compliance Indicator] identified noncompliance in 73 special education planning districts through

its monitoring and ensured correction of the noncompliance in all 73
planning districts within one year. (The State did not provide data in the
SPP regarding the percentage of monitoring findings that were corrected
within one year.) During the August 2006 verification visit, the State
explained that it required noncompliance to be corrected as soon as possible
and no later than one year from identification. The State further clarified,
however, that it considered noncompliance to be corrected, in reporting in
the SPP, if a planning district or school corporation made sufficient progress
toward compliance, whether or not it fully corrected the noncompliance.
The State acknowledged that there were districts and school corporations
that did not correct all noncompliance within one year.
During the verification visit, OSEP requested that the State provide more
detailed information regarding the status of correction of identified
noncompliance. Following the verification visit, the State provided a chart
that showed, for each of the State’s eight compliance indicators, the level of
compliance for 2003, 2004, and 2005. That chart showed a number of
planning districts and school corporations with noncompliance that persisted
from 2003 through 2004 and 2005.
In its November 22, 2006 verification visit letter, OSEP required the State to
provide in its FFY 2005 APR, due February 1, 2007, either: (1)
documentation that the State was implementing effective procedures for
ensuring the timely correction of noncompliance, including being able to
demonstrate that each special education planning district has corrected
noncompliance identified for more than one year previously; or (2) the
State’s plan for correcting and demonstrating, within one year from the date
on which OSEP accepted the plan, that IDE is effectively ensuring
correction. OSEP also required that the State provide, as part of its response
to Indicator 15 in its FFY 2005 APR, data regarding its effectiveness in
correcting noncompliance identified during the 2004-2005 reporting period.
In the FFY 2005 APR, the State reported only that, “100% of noncompliance
corrected within one year was not achieved.” The State did not provide any
data regarding the number of findings made during 2004-2005, the percent
or number of those findings timely corrected in 2005-2006, or any other
documentation of its effectiveness in correction of noncompliance. Further,
the State did not provide a plan for ensuring correction of the
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 10
 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps
noncompliance with the requirement that it ensure the timely correction of
noncompliance. The State indicated only that: (1) improvement activities
have been greatly expanded (OSEP notes that the State added two new
improvement activities to its SPP: "Monitoring results for all school
corporations will be posted on the website, and "Determination of school
district compliance/performance"); (2) the August 2006 OSEP verification
visit helped identify areas needing improvement; (3) the correction of
noncompliance within 12 months will be a top State priority for 2006-2007;
and (4) performance and compliance results will be posted on the State
website and the posting will serve as the notification of local districts of
their noncompliance and the start of the 12 month period for eliminating
noncompliance.
OSEP’s November 22, 2006 verification visit letter also required the State to
include in its FFY 2005 APR due February 1, 2007, either: (1)
documentation that IDE has corrected the noncompliance with the
requirements of sections 612(a)(16) and 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI) of the IDEA
with respect to districtwide assessments; or (2) the State’s plan for ensuring,
within one year from the date on which OSEP approves the plan, that IDE is
monitoring to ensure that school districts that administer districtwide
assessments are complying with the requirements of sections 612(a)(16) and
614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI) of the IDEA with respect to districtwide assessments.
The State did not provide either documentation that it corrected this
noncompliance or a plan for its correction.
The State must review its improvement strategies and revise them, if
appropriate, to ensure that they will enable the State to include data in the
FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E) and 34 CFR §§300.149 and
300.600, including data on the correction of outstanding noncompliance
identified in FFY 2004. In its response to Indicator 15 in the FFY 2006
APR, due February 1, 2008, the State must disaggregate by APR indicator
the status of timely correction of the noncompliance findings identified by
the State during FFY 2005, and the noncompliance identified in OSEP’s
November 22, 2006 verification visit letter. In addition, the State must, in
responding to Indicators 4A, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, specifically identify and
address the noncompliance identified in this table under those indicators.

16. Percent of signed written complaints with The State’s FFY 2005 OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts in achieving compliance and looks
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 11
 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

reports issued that were resolved within 60-day reported data for this indicator forward to reviewing data in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that
timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional are 100%. The State met its continue to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR
circumstances with respect to a particular FFY 2005 target of 100%. §300.152.
complaint.
[Compliance Indicator]

17. Percent of fully adjudicated due process The State’s FFY 2005 OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts in achieving compliance and looks
hearing requests that were fully adjudicated reported data for this indicator forward to reviewing data in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that
within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is are 100%. The State met its continue to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR
properly extended by the hearing officer at the FFY 2005 target of 100%. §300.515(a).
request of either party.
[Compliance Indicator]

18. Percent of hearing requests that went to The State’s FFY 2005 The State provided baseline data, targets and improvement activities and
resolution sessions that were resolved through reported baseline for this OSEP accepts the SPP for this indicator.
resolution session settlement agreements. indicator are 30.2 %.
[Results Indicator; New]

19. Percent of mediations held that resulted in The State’s FFY 2005 OSEP’s November 22, 2006 verification visit letter noted that in the SPP, the
mediation agreements. reported data for this indicator State indicated that if the mediation process was successful in reaching an
are 52.0%. This represents agreement, the mediation agreement would include findings and decisions of
[Results Indicator]
slippage from FFY 2004 data the mediator. In a follow-up call on November 13, 2006, the State clarified
of 66.0%. The State did not that the SPP language indicating that mediators make findings and decisions
meet its FFY 2005 target of was an error and would be deleted. OSEP’s verification visit letter required
66.2%. the State to correct this error as part of its response to Indicator 19 in the
APR due February 1, 2007. The State’s revised SPP submitted in February
2007 includes the necessary revision.

20. State reported data (618 and State The State’s FFY 2005 The State reports that it met its FFY 2005 target of 100%, however, as
Performance Plan and Annual Performance reported data for this explained above, the State did not submit FFY 2005 data for Indicator 15.
Report) are timely and accurate. indicator are 100%.
OSEP’S November 22, 2006 verification visit letter required the State to
[Compliance Indicator] submit with its FFY 2005 APR, a plan for ensuring that the State’s next
submission of educational environments data under section 618 meet the
reporting requirements in OSEP’s instructions. The State did not submit the
required plan. The State must submit this information in the FFY 2006 APR,
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 12
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

due February 1, 2008. The State must review its improvement strategies and
revise them, if appropriate, to ensure that they will enable the State to
include data in the FFY 2006 APR due February 1, 2008, that demonstrate
compliance with the requirements in IDEA section 618 and 34 CFR
§§76.720 and 300.601(b).

FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 13